Saturday, June 05, 2010

In Iraq, the violence never ends. Anthony Shadid (New York Times) reports that assailants (in Iraqi soldier and officer uniforms) have shot dead Faris Jassim al-Jabbouri who is a member of Iraqiya and had been a candidate (unsuccessful) for Parliament in the March elections. He is the third Iraqiya candidate to be shot dead. Moreover, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "Al Jubori is the third candidate killed in Mosul from the same bloc." [Correction 6-6-10, One month] before the election, one was shot dead and last month another was shot dead. Jamal al-Badrani, Muhanad Mohammed, Matt Robinson and Jon Boyle (Reuters) report on the assassination but with a different twist, "A police source, who asked not to be named, said Jubouri was shot dead by gunmen in police uniform overnight in his home near the restive northern city of Mosul." Reuters also notes a late Friday Baghdad roadside bombing which injured 6 people. In other Friday violence, Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) notes a Diyala Province roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives (four more wounded) -- these are in addition to bombings noted in yesterday's snapshot and today Mohammed Al Dulaimy notes a Baquba roadside bombing today which left two Iraqi soldiers wounded.

Meanwhile the targeting of Sunnis by the government or 'government' continues. Hilmi Kamal (Reuters) reports that the country's military states that Sahwa ("Awakenings" or "Sons Of Iraq") are no longer allowed to carry weapons, "Today, Saturday, we received an order from the Defence Ministry ground forces leadership to withdraw all the badges of Sahwa personnel and replace them with new ones that do not authorize them to carry weapons." It's certainly interesting timing. One could even argue Nouri was planning an assault on the Sunnis -- as opposed to these one at a time killings -- and that's why he was disarming the Sahwa. There is a context that this is taking place in: Nouri's refusal to stand down. As with everything else he's done in the last three months, this has to do with his desire to hold onto the position of prime minister. Since the Parliament is supposed to be sitting (for the first time, new Parliament) within two weeks, why is Nouri issuing orders? Again, there's a context, it's the same one that goes to the deals he's signed after elections concluded March 7th -- deals with foreign corporations and on control of Iraqi assets. There is a context for this.

The Independent of London reports that following his description on BBC1's Question as one of "the two most duplicitious men in public life" (Peter Mandelson being the other one), War Hawk and Tony Blair's platonic lover Alastair Campbell sniffed, "It doesn't bother me. It just doesn't bother me. If you've been compared to Goebbles, and occasionally Hitler, and Pol Pot and Rasputing -- it doesn't bother me." Gee, if all these comparisons are being made, might it be time for you to do a serious self-inventory?

This week, the wall-to-wall was Israel and Palestine. Iraqi Pundit raised some issues that you can be sure other people (especially Iraqis) noticed as well:

This news was greeted with anger and several demonstrations and protests against in several Middle East capital cities. The TV stations have non-stop coverage of this story. Who can blame them? Nobody deserves to be killed. But I do understand that the activists had to know there would be trouble when they heard the Israeli warnings. And the Israeli soldiers know they face death every day when they put on their uniforms. I repeat, nobody deserves to be killed. But why is it that so often people are more horrified by the deaths of Palestinians than others?This brings me to ask again where are the protests when Iraqis are killed while buying vegetables at the market, offering condolences at funerals, going to school, or engaging in other ordinary civilian activities. The message is when Palestinians or their supporters die, it's a tragedy. When Iraqis die, it's just another news story. Why?

What the United Nations independent investigator on extrajudicial killings would like is for countries that employ surprise drone attacks to first prove they have attempted to capture or incapacitate suspects. The investigator, Philip Alston, issued a 29-page report Wednesday that the New York Times termed “Highly Critical” of such attacks by the U.S. and, says the Associated Press, “called on countries to lay out rules and safeguards for carrying out the strikes.” By going after terrorist networks, Alston warned, the U.S. example “could quickly lead to a situation in which dozens of countries carry out ‘competing drone attacks’ outside their borders against people ‘labeled as terrorists by one group or another,’” Charlie Savage reported for the Times. “I’m particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe,” Alston is quoted as saying. “This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defense goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the U.N. Charter,” Alston pointed out.

Alston can demand restraint all he likes but the administration of Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama is not apt to listen. Obama has dramatically stepped up such attacks by the CIA over the occasional sorties resorted to by his predecessor. Washington’s thinking appears to be, Why should U.S. troops risk storming some alleged terrorist hideout when a CIA operator in far-off Langley, Va., needs only to manipulate a computer screen to have a drone wipe them out?

Reasons against using the drones include the possibility there may be innocent persons in the same building as the alleged terrorists. Only a week ago the military conceded its own drone operators called in an airstrike in February that killed 23 Afghan civilians, including women and children. Another argument against drones is that the alleged terrorists have no opportunity to surrender or to get a jury trial. The U.N.’s Alston also warns that for CIA operators thousands of miles from the point of attack “there is a risk of developing a ‘PlayStation’ mentality to killing.” Yet another argument against the drones is that the survivors of those killed regard such attacks as cowardly and each successful (from the CIA’s viewpoint) air strike only increases the public’s resolve to resist the U.S. occupation. Friends and relatives of the slain innocents turn bitterly against the U.S. This situation, by the way, is nothing new. U.S. and British air attacks on German facilities in occupied France during World War II were frequently so off target that the French Resistance pleaded with the U.S. to stop the bombing and to let them take out the Nazi targets from the ground, even at great risk to themselves. Sadly, 70,000 French civilians were killed by Allied aerial bombardments gone awry. “So far,” says international legal authority Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois at Champaign, “all CIA drone attacks have been murders, assassinations, and extrajudicial executions--a grave violation of international human rights law, the laws of the countries where the attacks took place, and of US domestic law.” Boyle added, “All CIA drone strikes in Pakistan are criminal and a grave violation of international human rights law.”

Approximately 30 Soldiers and three UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters from the Wisconsin Army National Guard received a mobilization order this week for an active duty mission later this year to Iraq.The Soldiers come from three West Bend-based units - Detachment 1, Company C; Detachment 2, Company D; and Detachment 2, Company E, all of 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation Regiment - and were notified of the alert and mobilization earlier this week.The Soldiers will report to their armory in November of this year and then link up with the rest of 2nd Battalion for training at a U.S. Army base in Texas before deploying overseas in support of Operation New Dawn (formerly Operation Iraqi Freedom). The mobilization is expected to last about one year, to include time spent training in Texas.The mobilizing units were until recently part of the West Bend-based 832nd Medical Company, a Wisconsin Army National Guard air ambulance unit boasting 100 members and nine helicopters. In February, the 832nd Medical Company reorganized into seven separate elements as part of the Army's realignment of aviation units including creating general support aviation battalions comprised of medical, utility, cargo, maintenance, general support and forward support companies. The reorganization was officially recognized during a May 2 ceremony at Fort McCoy.The 2/135th is based out of the Colorado Army National Guard and has assets in Nebraska, Louisiana, Kansas, California and Wisconsin. Detachment 1, Company C, is a subordinate unit to a Nebraska Army National Guard air ambulance company. Detachment 2, Company D is part of a maintenance company in Colorado, and Detachment 2, Company E is part of a forward support company also in Colorado.The four remaining units, which are not mobilizing at this time, are affiliated with 2nd Battalion, 238th Aviation is based out of the Indiana Army National Guard - Detachment 4, Headquarters Company; Detachment 5, Company D (maintenance); Detachment 5, Company E (forward support), and Company F (-). The Wisconsin detachments are attached to aviation companies in Indiana, while Company F— a medical air ambulance unit - is based in West Bend and has a detachment in Arkansas. The 2nd Battalion, 238th Aviation also has aviation assets in Illinois, South Carolina, Kentucky and California.The former 832nd Medical Company has been called to active duty frequently in recent years. In 1997 the unit served at Fort Benning, Ga., and Fort Stewart, Ga., to replace an active-duty air ambulance unit sent to the Balkans. In 2003, approximately 45 members of the 832nd provided air ambulance services at Fort Lewis, Wash., for approximately 27 months as part of Operation Noble Eagle. In 2005, the 832nd sent three UH-1 Huey helicopters and about 20 crew members to the New Orleans area to assist in Hurricane Katrina recovery operations. The 832nd again sent three UH-1 helicopters in September 2008 to North Little Rock, Ark., to assist with Hurricane Ike response efforts. In March of 2009 the 832nd was part of a Wisconsin National Guard effort to assist with flood duty in North Dakota.The 832nd finally traded in their versatile UH-1 helicopters for the UH-60 Black Hawk on May 3 of 2009.

Meanwhile will democracy come to Saratoga Springs? June 19th a Flag Day march will take place. Dennis Yusko (Albany Times Union) reports that the area's Elks lodge is banning Veterans For Peace from participating in the parade. Grand Dragon Kenny Tubbs is quoted snarling, "If you want to protest the flag, you have 364 days a year to do it." Actually, Kenny, there are 365 days in a year and maybe if you'd take the thumb out of your ass, you could've counted correctly? However, Veterans For Peace isn't attempting to protest the flag they just wnat to march:

Ex-service members in the VFP chapter say they want to march as themselves in a respectful manner, as they did in the city's Memorial Day Parade. The Elks have made them feel like a subversive, said Michael McGraw of Malta who fought in Vietnam with the Army in 1970 and 1971."We're part of the American quilt, and we feel we're being denied representation under the American flag."

Maybe the entire parade should be canceled? If Kenny Tubbs can't grasp what democracy is, he really isn't fit -- Grand Dragon of the Elks or not -- to be leading any parade supposedly recognizing and celebrating a cherished American totem.

Meanwhile in England, Owen Bowcott (Guardian) reports on what would be England's second known deportation of Iraqis -- forcible deportation. The last one, you may remember, resulted in a British plane landing in Iraq and Iraqi guards refusing to allow everyone to disembark so the plane returned to England. Bowcott notes that approximately 70 Iraqis will be forcibly deported Wednesday, June 9th: "The operation, deporting them via the central provinces of Iraq, is in direct contravention of United Nations guidelines. The UN high commissioner for refugees opposes forced returns to the area because of continuing suicide bombings and violence. The UN guidance was explicitly restated last autumn after the UK attempted to deport 44 men to Baghdad. That abortive operation resulted in Iraqi airport officials refusing to admit all but 10 of the men. The rest were told to reboard the plane and flown back to the UK."

London, 4 June 2010 - The Iraqi LGBT group has today expressed its 'deep concern' about reports that the British Home Office is planning to return 100 Iraqi refugees to Baghdad Wednesday 9 June - despite a recent UK report saying this was not safe.

"This group will certainly contain deeply closeted gay people and they will be at extreme risk of torture and murder in Baghdad," said Group leader Ali Hili.

Iraqi LGBT say that the Iraqi government provide no security for gays - infact the opposite as its members have reported the involvement of both police and Interior Ministry forces in handing over gay people to militias with either their tortured bodies being subsequently discovered or them disappearing.

The group has just released new testimony about Iraqi government complicity on YouTube, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ts3PedvPrs

Said Hili, "the Western media is not reporting the level of violence continuing in Baghdad. Bombings and assassinations continue to happen almost daily - this is why the United Nations said it is unsafe to remove refugees to that city. The lack of reporting means that the Home Office think they can get away with this inhuman action."

Amnesty International said in April that there was evidence that members of the security forces and other authorities were encouraging the targeting of people suspected to be gay.

The report added that killers of gay men could find protection under the law, as it offers lenient sentences for those committing crimes with an “honourable motive”.

"We condemn the proposed removals by the British government and the Iraqi government's complicity. Many of these people are opponents of the regime and if returned will end up being killed."

It has been reported by the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees (IFIR) that the 100 refugees have been screened by UK Border Agency 'ambassadors' pretending to be Iraqi embassy representatives at a detention centre. Refugees have reported being threatened by those 'interviewing' them.

"We are very familiar with such threats," said Ali. "I and other members of our group in exile have faced this, as have our family members. Many of our members have been murdered in Iraq and we have had safe houses invaded and people massacred. If these people are removed many of them will also be murdered."

Iraqi LGBT has cataloged 738 murders in the past five years.

The group has backed the call by the IFIR for the British government to end what IFIR calls "this inhuman policy" of refugee removals to Iraq.

Notes for editors

1. Iraqi LGBT is a human rights organisation with members inside Iraq and in exile. It provides safe houses for gays, lesbians and transgender people and has helped people escape into exile.

2. The International Federation of Iraqi Refugees campaigns for the rights of Iraqi refugees and against forcible deportations and detention. The Coalition to Stop Deportations to Iraq campaigns against the forcible deportation and detention of Iraqi refugees.

3. The flight will be the first to Iraq since the 14th October, when ten people were deported to Baghdad and the thirty-three others on the plane were sent back by the Iraqi authorities.See www.csdiraq.com for more information

4. At least four million Iraqis have been forced to flee either to another part of Iraq or abroad since the war began in 2003

5. According to Home Office figures, 632 people were forcibly deported to the KRG region in the north between 2005 and 2008. The International Federation of Iraqi Refugees estimates that the figure, with the monthly charter flights deporting 50 people at a time since the beginning of 2009, currently stands at approximately 900.

6. Iraqi LGBT has worked with and supported the work of IFIR for several years.

It is, indeed, one of the main problems with blogging that white heterosexual male bloggers who were lucky enough to catch the beginning of the online revolution have nothing but contempt for most other bloggers. They have the exact same faults they criticize the mainstream media for: closed minds to new ideas and a herd mentality.

Susan Page: Well Iraq's high court ratified the results of the national elections that were held on March 7th, Howard, who won?

Howard LaFranchi: Well according to the uh the Supreme Court ruling bascially what they did was uh verify that the uh bloc led by uh Ayad Allawi uh who is a uh a secular Shi'ite that his bloc won the most seats. Uh the problem is that they didn't win uh anything near a majority. Coming in second, just uh a few seats behind was the bloc of the current prime minister Maliki. And uh so now uh although it sounds great that okay finally there's a ruling and uh the results have been certified but now the-the jockeying and the-the power struggle shifts to Parliament because someone is going to have to come up with a uh coalition that will be a majority -- to be able to form the government. Uhm. Last -- or recently anyway [C.I. note, May 4th] -- Maliki sort of envisioning this formed a coalition with the forces of uh . . . [pause] the Islamic Sh'ite Movement of uh of uh Sadr uh a name that I think many Americans will be familiar with.

We got to break in, there's too much wrong there. What the hell is he saying? He doesn't know what he's saying. He's got some names he almost knows and tosses them out but does so wrongly. Nouri's State of Law formed a power-sharing coalition on May 4th with the Iraqi National Alliance slate. Ammar al-Hakim and his Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq or Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council are part of that alliance along with 17 other components/parties as well some independent politicians. Moqtada al-Sadr is also a member of the Iraqi National Alliance with his Sadr bloc. His bloc won the most seats of any component/party in the Iraqi National Alliance (40, followed by ISCI and Bard Organization with 18 seats. The INA, chaired by Ibrahim al-Jaafari, holds 70 seats in the new Parliament. Ayad Allawi heads Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament. Nouri al-Malki heads State Of Law which won 89 seats in the Parliament. State Of Law's power-sharing coalition with the Iraqi National Alliance gives them 159 seats currently (after Parliament is seated, the candidates are MPs and cannot be removed by their party and replaced with another candidate on their party's list -- once seated, some members of some blocs may decide to cut their own deals). 163 seats are needed for the government (prime minister and council) to be formed.

Howard LaFranchi (Con't): Uhm but the question will be the-the right to try to form a government will go first to uh uh --

Nadia Bilbassy: Allawi.

Howard LaFranchi: Allawi and the question will be if he will be able to succeed.

Susan Page: And, Nadia, is this taking longer than we expected.

Nadia Bilbassy: I think every time I come on The Diane Rehm Show I ask the same question.When they going to from the government and, I think, I don't have an answer. Probably September. I mean it's a good thing the highest judicial body in Iraq has certified the results because that means that they're no disputed anymore. And we heard from Prime Minister Maliki who said, 'No, we won, we have to recount it by hand. We have to do this, we have to do that.' So now it's over except for two seats that were disputed -- ultimately, it's not going to effect the results. As it stands now, 91 and 89 for Allawi [she has the totals backward, Allawi's slate has the 91]. The problem now it is jockeying for power. Who is going to form the government and, funny enough, it reminds me of Israel because, if you remember, Kadima won the election but they couldn't form the government and therefore it lost so it doesn't mean the winning party who got the popular vote will ultimately form the government. What we have seen now is actually Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki trying to go and coordination with the second larg -- third largest bloc which is the Iraqi National Alliance which includes Sadr and Hakim and others. The problem is people already see it as a Shi'ite domination and it's not just Shi'ite domination but Shi'ite religious domination and that will alienate the secular and the Sunnis. So the problem now is where do you go now? The President Jalal Talabani has 15 days to ask the Parliament to convene and after they nominate the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers they will go forward to ask the winning party -- which is Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya Party -- to form the government.

Susan Page: Now, Nadia, says that the government may not be formed until September. We have an August deadline for the reduction of US troops in Iraq --

Nadia Bilbassy: I mean, I hope it's [government formed] before.

Susan Page: Yeah, we hope it's before. But it's obviously taking quite a bit of time and no end yet quite in sight. Could this imperil the timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, David?

David Wood: I don't think so, Susan. We're going to have General Ray Odierno, top US commander in Iraq, briefing at the Pentagon in about an hour so we'll get an answer from him. But he met with President Obama this week and what he said was that the withdrawal of US combat troops was on track and they will all be gone by August 31st. About 50,000 US military personnel [troops] will be left in Iraq, but let me stress they are not organized in fighting units. [Apparently, they're instead organized in sewing circles. Quilting bees?] And they are largely technicians and administrators so that if violence does break out and the US is needed they will have to come back in from the outside.

They are combat troops. That's what the US military trains the troops for. When Barack first presented this laughable idea of "noncombat" troops being left in Iraq, Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) rightly -- and repeatedly -- expressed bewilderment over how Barack could 'create' this category. Since then Thomas E. Ricks has called it out repeatedly and many others as well. Ricks has, in fact, been the most elequent on this topic. On The Diane Rehm Show, for example, March 4th, Ricks observed, "I hate the phrase 'combat troops.' There is no pacifisit wing of the Marine Corps or the 101st Airborne. And I think it's effectively a lie to the American people. When they hear 'I'll get combat troops out,' what they hear is 'No more American troops will die' -- and that is blatantly untrue. And I think the sooner the president addresses that, the better for him." Exactly. We'll include David Wood's uninformed comments. I went back and forth on it but the reality is we'll return to them months from now in order to hang him with his own words. Joost R. Hiltermann examines the current situation in "Iraq's Summer of Uncertainty" (New York Review of Books):

The outlook is ominous. As the politicians dither, governmental institutions -- never particularly effective -- could become paralyzed, as senior officials fear for their careers if they make decisions that would anger Iraq's future rulers. Uncertainty over the country's prospects could spread through society and the economy. In a political vacuum, outside regional powers would almost certainly gain greater influence and be tempted to meddle more than they already do. The United States, which has been so eager to depart that it failed to craft an exit strategy, would then have trouble being heard over the din. Lacking strong support in Baghdad, parties and politicians would have little choice but to seek succour in neighbouring capitals, insinuating these states' countervailing interests into what is already a combustible mix. And Iraq's insurgencies could get a second wind, again making violence the primary mode of politics.

Alsumaria TV states Iraqi National Alliance's Bahaa Al Araij is stating that an announcement will be forthcoming and that while State Of Law is going with Nouri, the Iraqi National Alliance will nominate their chair Ibrahim Al Jaafari and Adel Abdul-Mehdi. Ibrahim al-Jaafari was Iraq's second post-invasion prime minister. He was also the first choice, following the December 2005 elections, to be (remain) prime minister; however, the US government objected to him and Nouri al-Maliki was then chosen as a compromise candidate. In the 2005 elections, he had the support of Moqtada al-Sadr's followers. That allowed him to defeat Adel Abudl-Mahdi by a single vote in those elections. Adel Abdul-Mahdi currently serves as Iraq's Shi'ite vice president (Iraq has two vice presidents) he belongs to al-Hakim's political party. al-Jaafari spent his exile time in Iran and England while Abdul-Mahdi spent his exile time in France. Nouri spent his exile time predominantly in Syria and Iran while Allawi spent significant time in England. All potential prime ministers (thus far) are former exiles.

Nouri wants to continue in the post. There is opposition to that within the Iraqi National Alliance. Tossing out their two most popular figues from the last election appears to indicate that they do not see the power-sharing coalition as a rubber stamp for Nouri's continued reign.

Nouri's close ties with Iran have not resulted in Iraq's territorial sovereignty being respected. Tuesday some reports maintained the Iranian military had entered northern Iraq while other reports insisted no entry had taken place:

Sherko Raouf, Shamil Aqrawi and Matt Robinson (Reuters) report that there are rumors (denied by Kurdish officials) that Iran has entered northern Iraq but that over 100 Iraqi families have fled the area in the last seven days. Sunday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN)reported the Iranian shelling claimed the life of 1 teenage Iraqi girl in nothern Iraq. Xinhua (link has text and audio) identified the 14-year-old as Basouz Jabbar Agha. As with the Turkish military, Iranian military claims their target is the PKK -- a group identified by many countries (including the US) and the European Union as a terrorist organization and one that has established a base in nothern Iraq (among other places). [They would actually claim their target is PJAK and we're not drawing a line between the PKK and PJAK here -- they have the same leader, the same goals and are 'mingled' in the northern Iraq bases.] The PKK seeks an official Kurdish homeland (usually within Turkey) and points to decades of persecution. One of their leaders is Abudllah Ocalan who has been in a Turkish prison since 1999. The BBC reported over the weekend that he was rumored to have announced "he was abandoning efforts for dialogue with the Turkish government." Hurriyet Daily News reports that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will hold a terrorism summit on Wednesday (Turkey labels the PKK a terrorist organization). Meanwhile AFP quotes an unnamed "security official" stating that Iranian troops have moved "three kilometers" into northern Iraq. Caroline Alexander and Kadhim Ajrash (Bloomberg News) quote KRG spokesperson Kawa Mahmoud stating, "These reports about an Iranian incursion into Krudistan are totally false. There may be Iranian activity near the border, but there is no incursion." The reality? At this point unknown. Iran's most recent invasion of Iran (December 2009) was greeted with denials from some Iraqi government officials and from some Iranian government officials. But the violation of sovereignty did take place.

This afternoon, Leila Fadel and Dlovan Barawri (Washington Post) report that Nouri's officials deny the Iranian military has entered northern Iraq; however, "Incensed by the intensity of the attacks and what they say is a brazen ground movement nearly two miles into Iraqi territory, Kurdish officials have reached out to the central government to stop the Iranian incursion and continued shelling, said Jabar al-Yawar, the spokesman for the peshmerga, the Kurdish regional force." Meanwhile the PKK in northern Iraq announced the end of their ceasefire with Turkey's military. This announcement came as KRG President Masoud Barzani was in the midst of a five-day visit to Turkey -- his first in approximately five years. Mehmet Ali Birand (Hurriyet Daily News) opines, "We shouldn't expect Barzani to grab a weapon and fight for Turkey up in the mountain or fight against the PKK. No matter how much he dislikes this terrorist organization and is against the interests of Iraqi Kurds, this means a war between Kurds. That's why we shouldn't expect Barzani to fight for Turkey against the PKK. But on the other hand, we expect him to take measures and stop the PKK strolling around freely. We can do this only by acting together." Today's Zaman reports, "While expressing support for the Turkish government's efforts to engage its Kurdish population with the aim of ending decades of fighting with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which has killed tens of thousands of people, Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani on Thursday also voiced regret over the deaths of young people in the conflict between Turkish security forces, no matter if they are Kurdish or Turkish."

Today's violence, Reuters notes, included a 2 Mosul roadside bombings which claimed 2 lives and left six people wounded and a Mosul car bombing which injured three people.

Earlier this week, we noted BP wants to get their unskilled hands on more Iraqi oil. Ben Lando (Time magazine) reports on this topic and it appears the US government is using US officials -- military and civilians -- as whores for BP:

Major General Vincent Brooks, commander of U.S. forces in southern Iraq, towered over dozens of fellow visitors on a recent dusty morning in the Rumaila oil field in Iraq's oil capital Basra province. With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill nearby, Brooks chatted up the president of Iraq operations for BP. In November BP signed a contract along with Chinese partners to develop the field. Rumaila was first drilled by BP a half century ago, but the company, along with other foreign oil companies, was kicked out in the 1970s when Iraq nationalized its oil sector.

A US commander and the US ambassador do not need to whore their positions by accompanying BP around. That's disgraceful and oh, so telling. So as Iraq continues to struggle, remember that Chris Hill, when not on a crying jag from his manic depression, could be found showing the fellows of BP a good time out in the oil field.

At the Pentagon today, Gen Ray Odierno gave a briefing that was song and dance and someone break it to him that he lacks rhythm. He spun like crazy and as you heard that significant markers showed improvement and this one and that one was arrested, you may have been reminded of "WORLD CUP TO BE ATTACKED BY AL-QAEDA!" How'd that work out? Apparently, it was spin. But it sure did eat up airtime on CNN and take us far, from reality. Today was nonsense. We'll note this section of Odierno's remarks:

There will still be bad days in Iraq. There are still violent elements that operate inside Iraq. There violence is less than it was before but it's still violence. And we will continue to work with the Iraqi security forces to improve their capacity and capability to deal with the violence to continue to increase stability inside of Iraq and to continue to increase the capability of the government as we move forward.

We've seen Odierno testify to Congress, we've seen him manipulate the media (giving them a non-answer they mistake for an answer). In all that time, for any paying attention, one thing is obvious, when Odierno lies, he closes his eyes. To see him at the podium today was to really see that personal tic play out.

F16s are something the press is running with. Butt Ass Stupid apparently being an easy way to. They tend to ignore the most important remark in that exchange: "This will be an evolving process over the next few years." What will be? Determining and turning over F16s to Iraq. Iraq's Air Force is not ready. A sale of F16s would help them somewhat but would not make them ready. This has not changed and that was a key point from the briefing to those paying attention. Odierno misdirected and controlled the press conference but that tends to happen over and over and the press never pays attention, never learns and still can't identify even one of his uncomfortable tics let alone his lie tic. Again, when he's lying, he closes his eyes while speaking. Jim Wolf (Reuters) is one of the few paying attention and he's the one who asked about the F16s. He also did a follow up.

Jim Wolf: But they wanted something to be there by the time US combat troops completed their withdrawal at the end of next year. Are you saying that if this is going to take years the US won't be able to meet that request?

Gen Ray Odierno: Well I think what they'll have is they'll have some Air Force capability, they'll continue to build some capability, not fighter aircraft. The fighter aircraft will come some time after 2011. Like we do in many other countries as we sell them aircraft.

Yesterday's snapshot addressed Don't Ask, Don't Tell at length. Today To The Contrary (PBS) has a discussion on the policy and how it effects women and minorities. The weekly program broadcasts on PBS and each week it also offers an exclusive online segment which, this week, is on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Bonnie Erbe is the program's host and producer and her panelists this week (from the right) are Linda Chavez and Karen Czarnecki and (from the left) Melinda Henneberger and US House Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton:

Bonnie Erbe: All of this comes just as a recent survey finds minorities and women are disproportionately effected by the ban. In 2008, 45% of troops discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell were minorities yet minorities made up 30% of the military that year. And while female troops made up 14% of the military, they accounted for 34% of discharges. So what's going on here? Why -- Why, first of all, are minorities and women disproportionately discharged like this?

Linda Chavez: I don't think we know the answer based on this one survey. I actually was a bit skeptical about, certainly, the figures on minorities. It didn't make sense to me. The women made a little more sense to me. I think it is more likely -- and probably going to get myself into trouble here -- but I think it's more likely that a lesbian would be comfortable in a very masculine role in the military. So the fact that there might be more lesbians in the military than there are gay men --

Bonnie Erbe: Actually, let me throw a, you know, mine your way as well. I called the head of the Service Persons United and more often the threat of -- of falsely outing a woman is used to get her to succomb to sexaul advances than a lesbian, an actual lesbian. So some of this is happening at least because a guy hits on a woman, she tells him to go take a hike and he runs to their commander and says, "She's a lesbian."

Melinda Henneberger: Well it would have to be that, right?

US House Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton: Well no, it isn't that. And this is why this law is so cockeyed: It's Don't Ask, Don't Tell. So the fact that she's a lesbian and somebody thinks she's a lesbian should have nothing to do with this. You have to out yourself. Now this is subject to great abuse because what is outing yourself -- saying, "I am a lesbian" -- mean? Does it mean that someone's tricked you into saying what you are? I hope that this study [Pentagon review] that is going to be out before this goes into effect also looks at this. This is contra-indicated. I also agree with you [Linda Chavez] for one thing, in the minority community, there is enough homophobia so that people would tend to surpress it, leave aside Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And for women, one does wonder if that is real abuse of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell process which lends itself to that anyway.

Karen Czarnecki: I always thought Don't Ask, Don't Tell was supposed to be a compromise. Keep it to yourself, we don't want to hear about it. And so at least it could keep the peace in the military. The fact of the repeal? I don't know how it's going to effect anybody. They couldn't study anything because of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell so I think, similar to what you're [Linda Chavez] saying, we don't know enough about how this will effect. It will make some people happy, it will make other people angry. It's going to be a whole mix of emotions as this evolves.

Bonnie Erbe: Melinda, John McCain says he's going to fight it in the -- fight lifting the law in the Senate because to allow gays to serve openly would effect morale. Agree? Disagree?

Melinda Henneberger: I strongly disagree and I think that based on what I've heard from PoliticsDaily's war correspondent, he says he has yet to meet the soldier in the field who has time to worry about such a thing or who has voiced that in a very, very long time. So, no, I think that is a minority view that -- John McCain is in a tough political primary right now

Linda Chavez: Well I also think it's a generational thing, Melinda, because I think if you check people in John McCain's generation or even in my generation, they're going to be much more dubious about this. But if you talk to young people -- who are the people serving in the military now -- I think we've become much more accepting of gays in all walks of life and so I think they're going to be less uncomfortable.

Melinda Henneberger: I agree with what [pointing to Karen Czarnecki] --

US House Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton: Fortunately we have the Army and the Air Armed Forces has big experience in this. If you want to talk about effecting morale, I'll tell you this without fear of contradiction, 1948, straight-away, Blacks and Whites must be in the same unit. If you think that White Americans -- this is before the '54 decision [Brown v. Board of Education], before any law of any kind had been passed, were ready for that, I can tell you that what made them ready was that they were in a command structure. And if that command structure does its work, I'm not even a little bit worried.

Bonnie Erbe: Alright. Thanks for watching TTC Extra. Whether your views are in agreement or To The Contrary, please join us next time.

TV notes. Of course,Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Linda Chavez, Melinda Henneberger and Eleanor Holmes Norton on the latest broadcast of PBS' To The Contrary to discuss the week's events. On PBS' Washington Week, Peter Baker (NYT), Michael Duffy (Time) and Doyle McManus join Gwen around the roundtable or at least in the NO WOMEN ALLOWED Club House. Seriously, Gwen, where the hell do you get off booking three men? Do you know how many times Gwen books an all female roundtable. As Maya Rudolph's character Jodi would say on Bronx Beat, "0.00." Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Linda Chavez, Melinda Henneberger and Eleanor Holmes Norton on the latest broadcast of PBS' To The Contrary to discuss the week's events. And at the website each week, there's an extra just for the web from the previous week's show and this week's bonus is a discussion on whether female soldiers suffer more under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

The SwindlerTo understand how Bernard Madoff could have done what he did, listen to so-called "mini-Madoff" Ponzi schemer Marc Dreier tell Steve Kroft in his first television interview how he scammed $400 million. | Watch Video

The Case Against Nada ProutyFormer FBI and CIA terrorism fighter Nada Prouty was herself accused of aiding terrorism, but in her first interview, she denies she was anything other than a patriot. Scott Pelley investigates her case. | Watch Video

The SharkmanAnderson Cooper dives unprotected with great white sharks and the South African who's spent more time up close with the ocean's most feared predator than anyone else. | Watch Video

For eight and a half years, the US prison at Bagram airbase has been the site of a disturbing number of experiments in detention and interrogation, where murders have taken place, the Geneva Conventions have been shredded and the encroachment of the US courts -- unlike at Guantanamo -- has been thoroughly resisted. In the last few months, there have been a few improvements -- hearings, releases, even the promise of imminent trials -- but behind this veneer of respectability, the US government's unilateral reworking of the Geneva Conventions continues unabated, and evidence has recently surfaced of a secret prison within Bagram, where a torture program that could have been lifted straight from the Bush administration's rule book is still underway.

Don't let Anthony Shadid be the chaperone for any school outing. Judging by his blog post this morning, Shadid should never do the headcount before everyone heads back to campus. At the New York Times' At War Blog, he writes, "There are fewer than 90,000 American troops still in Iraq." May 25th, Elizabeth Bumiller was reporting at the paper's same blog: "For more than a year it has been called 'Obama's War,' but on Tuesday the numbers made it official: For the first time since the United States led the invasion of Baghdad during the Bush administration in 2003, there were more American troops deployed to Afghanistan than Iraq -- 94,000 compared with 92,000." 92,000 was the official figure handed out by the Pentagon last week. Today, a week later, Shadid is saying "fewer than 90,000 American troops still in Iraq." Where did the 2,000 (apparently more than 2,000) go to? And when did this new head count take place?

After all that the U.S. occupation has taken from Iraq, Issawi said, Iraqis deserve to get something back -- even if it's just a low price on a laptop. "These are our things," he said. "They took these things from us, and now we are selling them back. They occupied our country by force."Families buy $1,000 trailers once fashioned into sleeping quarters for soldiers and Marines. Base latrines have become cheaper alternatives to traditional dwellings made of brick and concrete. Air-conditioner units and large generators that can stave off Iraq's blistering summers are sold at half-price.

Earlier this week, we noted BP wants to get their unskilled hands on more Iraqi oil. Ben Lando (Time magazine) reports on this topic and it appears the US government is using US officials -- military and civilians -- as whores for BP:

Major General Vincent Brooks, commander of U.S. forces in southern Iraq, towered over dozens of fellow visitors on a recent dusty morning in the Rumaila oil field in Iraq's oil capital Basra province. With U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill nearby, Brooks chatted up the president of Iraq operations for BP. In November BP signed a contract along with Chinese partners to develop the field. Rumaila was first drilled by BP a half century ago, but the company, along with other foreign oil companies, was kicked out in the 1970s when Iraq nationalized its oil sector.

A US commander and the US ambassador do not need to whore their positions by accompanying BP around. That's disgraceful and oh, so telling. So as Iraq continues to struggle, remember that Chris Hill, when not on a crying jag from his manic depression, could be found showing the fellows of BP a good time out in the oil field.

The outlook is ominous. As the politicians dither, governmental institutions -- never particularly effective -- could become paralyzed, as senior officials fear for their careers if they make decisions that would anger Iraq's future rulers. Uncertainty over the country's prospects could spread through society and the economy. In a political vacuum, outside regional powers would almost certainly gain greater influence and be tempted to meddle more than they already do. The United States, which has been so eager to depart that it failed to craft an exit strategy, would then have trouble being heard over the din. Lacking strong support in Baghdad, parties and politicians would have little choice but to seek succour in neighbouring capitals, insinuating these states' countervailing interests into what is already a combustible mix. And Iraq's insurgencies could get a second wind, again making violence the primary mode of politics.

As dangerous as things are currently, the White House is sending Chris Hill around as the "professional date" for Big Oil? Is that, in fact, while the unqualified Hill was picked in the first place? Is it why, despite the disaster he's proven to be, he'll apparently be allowed to continue to mishandle things for another month?

TV notes. On PBS' Washington Week, Peter Baker (NYT), Michael Duffy (Time) and Doyle McManus join Gwen around the roundtable or at least in the NO WOMEN ALLOWED Club House. Seriously, Gwen, where the hell do you get off booking three men? Do you know how many times Gwen books an all female roundtable. As Maya Rudolph's character Jodi would say on Bronx Beat, "0.00." Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Linda Chavez, Melinda Henneberger and Eleanor Holmes Norton on the latest broadcast of PBS' To The Contrary to discuss the week's events. And at the website each week, there's an extra just for the web from the previous week's show and this week's bonus is a discussion on whether female soldiers suffer more under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

The SwindlerTo understand how Bernard Madoff could have done what he did, listen to so-called "mini-Madoff" Ponzi schemer Marc Dreier tell Steve Kroft in his first television interview how he scammed $400 million. | Watch Video

The Case Against Nada ProutyFormer FBI and CIA terrorism fighter Nada Prouty was herself accused of aiding terrorism, but in her first interview, she denies she was anything other than a patriot. Scott Pelley investigates her case. | Watch Video

The SharkmanAnderson Cooper dives unprotected with great white sharks and the South African who's spent more time up close with the ocean's most feared predator than anyone else. | Watch Video

60 Minutes, Sunday, June 6, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Radio. Today on The Diane Rehm Show (airs on most NPR stations and streams live online beginning at 10:00 am EST), Diane is joined the first hour (domestic news roundup) by John Dickerson (CBS News, Slate), John King (CNN) and Karen Tumulty (Washington Post). For the second hour? I'm not in the mood for the garbage. Last week, I got twelve e-mails pointing out that the program wasted time on Afghanistan when they'd just done Afghanistan the day before. Well they've done Israel before and they're going to be doing it again today? Iraq? With these panelists? Don't make me laugh. And, in response to questions last week: Never. Or, again, as Jodi would put it "0.00." The question: How many times has Diane devoted the program to the Iraq elections? Never. They concluded March 7th ("concluded" because that was a Sunday and early voting began the Thursday before). Despite filling two hours daily Monday through Friday, there has never been an hour devoted to Iraqi elections or, for that matter, to anything Iraq related since March. Two US service members died this week from the Iraq War (possibly three) but, hey, they've all moved on. And if Iraq falls off the radar today on the show -- as it did last week -- look for me to really let it rip in the snapshot because that will go perfectly with a headline that needs ripping apart and that was going to be the topic for last night's "I Hate The War."

With growing concern about the plight of Christians in their native land, local Iraqi Americans met this week with the highest-ranking State Department official in charge of Iraq policy when he made a three-day stop in Detroit.But Michael Corbin, deputy assistant secretary of state for Iraq in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, faced an angry crowd that shouted him down during one of his meetings with Chaldeans, illustrating the frustrations many have about the perceived erosion of Christianity in Iraq and Chaldean refugees facing deportation.

The above is from Niraj Warikoo's "U.S. official: Iraq works to protect the churches" (Detroit Free Press) and it's hard to know who to be more disgusted at, the serial liar Michael Corbin or Niraj Warikoo? "Perceived erosion of Christianity in Iraq"? Really? And to try to pull that crap in Detroit? With all the Iraqis that have been resettled there since the start of the illegal war, Michigan's really not the place to attempt to 'soften' (rewrite) history. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Refugees International -- those are just some of the organizations that have documented the reality of the erosion of Christianity in Iraq. The United Nations has documented it. And Warikoo wants to put it in terms of "perceived"?

Perceived? Last month's attack on college students attacked which grouping? Iraqi Christians. The religious structure/body (to refer to building and who is housed there) just outside Mosul recently targeted with bombings? That was a convent. The last 12 months have seen attacks outside and/or near mosques. But there's been bombings of Christian churches during the same period. Bombings of. Not near or outside. The nonsense from Michael Corbin is the usual crap we could have gotten from the State Dept under Bush (and did -- and got it from Corbin). Is the Iraqi government committed to stopping the attacks on Iraqi Christians? (Or is that "perceived attacks on Iraqi Christians"?) Based on what?

Based on the same meaningless statements Nouri and his officials have been making since 2006? Based on the success Nouri and his officials have had prosecuting attacks on Iraqi Christians? Certainly not on that one because no one gets prosecuted for that. But after four years of gum flapping and never any action, Corbin wants to site the gum flapping.

This piece is an insult and what may be the most insulting of all is that Corbin was there to meet with the Iraqi exile community in that area -- predominantly Iraqi Christians. And yet Warikoo's Q&A with Corbin features a lot of b.s. and only one question (the first) about Iraqi Christians. Corbin was there why? Yeah, Iraqi Christians. So let's waste everyone's time by asking questions like: Do you think the Iraq War was worth it? You really think career State Dept -- and lower level flunky at that -- is going to give you an answer worth printing? And you really think when someone's booed loudly by a crowd, you don't follow up on that by asking one question after another on the topic that got the official booed?

A politician giving a speech might get away with it. Someone writing an article? It really shouldn't be more than twenty. How much over 4,000 was the death toll in Iraq when Memorial Day rolled around?

400.

"Over 4,000"? 4,400 requires more precision than that. That's one-tenth of the figure they used. That's two high of a percentage to reduce to "over 4,000." It's sloppy and indicates that anything else in the article should be greeted with the same skepticism.

A criminal complaint says the Naults used large amounts of money set aside for Shane to gamble, buy a truck, and travel. That money came from government checks, military pay grants, insurance policies and funds raised through benefits and donations for Shane.Forensic accountants found a number of additional accounts set up by Lori and Michael Nault, allegedly to divert and hide money. They also uncovered large ATM withdrawl receipts and copies of checks written at casinos in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and West Virginia.

Shane Nault was serving in Iraq when his Humveee was hit by an IED. He continued serving and another IED (May 2007) left him further wounded (the first IED reduced his hearing by 60%). Shane Nault had shrapnel in his brain. He suffered multiple injuries as a result.

I am the mother of a hero. My son, Sgt Shane Nault, was injured when his humvee hit an IED while in Baghdad. This happened on 05/08/2007. Shane had shrapnel that entered through his left temple and exited above his right eye. Every bone in his face was shattered like crushed corn flakes, except for his lower jaw. He lost brain matter, had severe frontal lobe damage and extensive left brain damage. Remarkably he survived and was flown to Germany for more care. They removed the shattered part of his skull and stabilized him for the trip back to the States. He arrived on 05/10/2007. During the flight Shane suffered a massive stroke that destroyed the rest of the left side of his brain. We met him when he arrived at the national naval medical center in Bethesda, MD and could barely recognize him. Remarkably he survived all of this trauma. Shane is now blind, does not speak, is paralyzed on the right side, and has severe cognitive disabilities, but by the grace of god he is still with us. He shows us what miracles are about every day. We treasure every moment we have with him. The worst thing we have experienced through this whole thing is the financial situation. My husband and I have had to leave our jobs to care for our son, or he would have to be put into a nursing home. We have no means of compensation for caring for him. Something is wrong with this picture. The government will pay a nursing home to care for our son but they will not supplement us in any way. The hardship is incredible, but don't get me wrong we would do nothing different.Please work for the families also who are caring for this "heroes". There are so many young men and women coming home with TBIs, mild and severe, and we need to help all involved in their care.Bob Woodruff has brought to light many of the changes that need to be made and we are so grateful for that. If you would like to read about my son please go to www.caringbridge.org/visit/spcshanenault God bless - Lori Nault (mom of Sgt. Shane Nault)

It would be wonderful if the whole thing ended up being some horrible misunderstanding but no one should hold their breath on that happening.

For eight and a half years, the US prison at Bagram airbase has been the site of a disturbing number of experiments in detention and interrogation, where murders have taken place, the Geneva Conventions have been shredded and the encroachment of the US courts -- unlike at Guantanamo -- has been thoroughly resisted.In the last few months, there have been a few improvements -- hearings, releases, even the promise of imminent trials -- but behind this veneer of respectability, the US government’s unilateral reworking of the Geneva Conventions continues unabated, and evidence has recently surfaced of a secret prison within Bagram, where a torture program that could have been lifted straight from the Bush administration’s rule book is still underway.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.